Some claim divorce courts may have been illegally
converted from common law, which requires jury trial, to equity law, which does
not?

This transference to equity, along with the "best interest" (which could be
instructions to a jury even in common law) are the central issues that allow
the courts to conspire with the mother to fraudulently redistribute wealth
in the form of child support and redistribute children in the form of
"custody".

Statutes 1835, Chapter 76, Section 20, “A divorce for the cause of
Adultery, committed by the wife, shall nor affect the legitimacy of
the issue of the marriage, but the legitimacy of the children, if
questioned, shall be tried and determined according to the course of
common law.”

But now legitimacy is under equity wit no right to a trial.

If you read enough of these case cites you'll see that juries were always in
these matters to provide determinations regarding question of facts. Did he/she
commit adultery or was he/she cruel and abusive or did he/she leave for
'justifiable cause'. Questions reserved for the jury. Juries determine facts
and the law in our system. Oliver W. Holmes had a quote that said almost
exactly this.

I disagree with the concept of best interest and taking a child from a fit
parent that has not caused the child harm but if the best interest determination
is a question of fact, not of law., why aren't juries determining the best
interest? But one question that remains is how would equal parenting work
outside marriage. Certainly should not have government making the calls.

Until Statutes 1953, Chapter 505 (which I've now read) the only way the state
could impose child support obligation without the corresponding reciprocal
natural right to the care, custody, companionship and guardianship was in a
criminal trial where the jury found neglect, abandonment, or abuse. The
blending into equity means a severe lack of due process.

The current system is not derivable under rules of law from where it started.
It is a Leninist Socialist system that is designed to destroy the family.

Kirby v. Kirby, 338 Mass 263 (1959) “The respondent cites certain
cases for the proposition that a father who is deprived of the custody of his
child by order of court has no common law duty of support. Creeley v. Creeley,
258 Mass. 460, 463, 155 N.E. 424, 52 A.L.R. 285; Barry v. Sparks, 306 Mass. 80,
82-83, 27 N.E.2d 728, 128 A.L.R. 983; Hathaway v. Rickard, 323 Mass. 501,
502-503, 82 N.E.2d 881. While there is nothing to show that the respondent has
been deprived of such custody, it should be noted that the rule now is otherwise
under G.L. c. 273, § 8, as amended by St.1953, c. 505, which provides,
‘The legal duty of the parent or parents to support a minor child shall continue
* * * notwithstanding any court decree granting custody of such child to
another.’ Keene v. Toth, 335 Mass. 591, 594-595, 141 N.E.2d 509.”